Regional ash fall hazard I: a probabilistic assessment methodology
- 746 Downloads
Volcanic ash is one of the farthest-reaching volcanic hazards and ash produced by large magnitude explosive eruptions has the potential to affect communities over thousands of kilometres. Quantifying the hazard from ash fall is problematic, in part because of data limitations that make eruption characteristics uncertain but also because, given an eruption, the distribution of ash is then controlled by time and altitude-varying wind conditions. Any one location may potentially be affected by ash falls from one, or a number of, volcanoes so that volcano-specific studies may not fully capture the ash fall hazard for communities in volcanically active areas. In an attempt to deal with these uncertainties, this paper outlines a probabilistic framework for assessing ash fall hazard on a regional scale. The methodology employs stochastic simulation techniques and is based upon generic principles that could be applied to any area, but is here applied to the Asia-Pacific region. Average recurrence intervals for eruptions greater than or equal to Volcanic Explosivity Index 4 were established for 190 volcanoes in the region, based upon the eruption history of each volcano and, where data were lacking, the averaged eruptive behaviour of global analogous volcanoes. Eruption histories are drawn from the Smithsonian Institution’s Global Volcanism Program catalogue of Holocene events and unpublished data, with global analogues taken from volcanoes of the same type category: Caldera, Large Cone, Shield, Lava dome or Small Cone. Simulated are 190,000 plausible eruption scenarios, with ash dispersal for each determined using an advection–diffusion model and local wind conditions. Key uncertainties are described by probability distributions. Modelled results include the annual probability of exceeding given ash thicknesses, summed over all eruption scenarios and volcanoes. A companion paper describes the results obtained for the Asia-Pacific region
KeywordsVolcanic hazard Hazard assessment Probabilistic modelling Ash dispersion Regional hazard assessment Methodology
Home to 25 % of the world’s volcanoes and over two billion inhabitants, the Asia-Pacific region, on the western rim of the Pacific ‘ring of fire’, is one of the world’s most densely populated areas, with many cities and communities threatened by ash falls and other volcanic hazards, often from multiple volcanoes. Parts of Honshu in Japan, for example, lie within reach of ash falls from any one of 60 different volcanoes situated within 1,000 km. Even relatively thin ash falls (∼1 mm) are capable of disrupting vital lifelines such as transport, water supply, telecommunications and electricity (Blong 1984). This study develops a regional ash hazard assessment methodology using a probabilistic modelling framework. Modelled results for the Asia-Pacific region are detailed in a companion paper (Jenkins et al. 2012).
Previous volcanic hazard assessments have typically explored the hazard or risk from a single volcano (e.g. Jenkins et al. 2008; Macedonio et al. 2008) or to a particular site (e.g. Hoblitt et al. 1987; Magill and Blong 2005). Few regional studies of volcanic hazard or risk have been attempted: exceptions include that of Ewert (2007), who, based upon 15 hazard and 10 exposure attributes, ranked 169 US volcanoes in terms of their potential threats to populations. Along a similar theme, Yokoyama et al. (1984), Arnold et al. (2005) and Small and Naumann (2001) all undertook global volcanic hazard analyses, with the latter concluding that Southeast Asia is particularly exposed to persistent volcanism.
Of those assessments where the volcanic hazard was defined spatially, a constant level of hazard is assumed within concentric circles of fixed radii extending from the source volcano. Radii have ranged from 30 km (Ewert 2007) to 200 km (Small and Naumann 2001). These analyses cannot account for different eruption magnitudes or styles from the volcano in question or for the varying dispersion of ash because of time- and altitude-varying wind conditions.
Two studies have improved upon this by attempting to take into account these factors. Spence et al. (2009) considered the population impacted by individual European volcanoes to be those within a 60° sector defined by average prevailing wind directions. Hurst and Smith (2004) carried out probabilistic ash dispersal modelling to determine the ash fall hazard from three volcanoes in the North Island of New Zealand over a 10,000-year period.
The 190 volcanoes identified for regional hazard assessment, grouped by country
Australia (n = 1)
Newer volcanic province
Eastern China (n = 4)
Baitoushan, Jingbo, Longgang Group, Wudalianchi
Indonesia (n = 73)
Ambang, Agung, Arjuno-Welirang, Awu, Batur, Cereme, Colo [Una Una], Dempo, Dieng Volc Complex, Dukono, Ebulobo, Egon, Galunggung, Gamalama, Gamkonora, Gede, Geureudong, Guntur, Ibu, Inierie, Inielika, Ijen, Iliboleng, Iliwerung, Iya, Iyang-Argapura, Kaba, Karangetang [Api Siau], Kelimutu, Kelut, Kerinci, Kiaraberes-Gagak, Krakatau, Lamongan, Leroboleng, Lewotobi, Lewotolo, Lokon-Empung, Mahawu, Makian, Marapi, Merapi, Merbabu, Muria, Paluweh, Papandayan, Penanggungan, Peuet Sague, Ranakah, Ranau, Raung, Rinjani, Ruang, Salak, Sangeang Api, Semeru, Sempu, Seulawah Agam, Sibayak, Sinabung, Sirung, Slamet, Soputan, Sorikmarapi, Sumbing, Sundoro, Talang, Tambora, Tandikat, Tangkubanparahu, Tengger Caldera, Tongkoko, Wilis
Japan (n = 63)
Adatara, Akagi, Akan, Akita-Komaga-take, Akita-Yake-yama, Asama, Aso, Azuma, Bandai, Chokai, E-san, Fuji, Fukue-jima, Hakkoda Group, Hakone, Haku-san, Haruna, Hiuchi, Ibusuki Volc Field, Iwaki, Iwate, Izu-Tobu, Kanpu, Kikai, Kirishima, Komaga-take, Kozu-shima, Kuchinoerabu-jima, Kuju, Kurikoma, Kusatsu-Shirane, Kuttara, Mashu, Megata, Mikura-jima, Miyake-jima, Myoko, Nasu, Niigata-Yake-yama, Nii-jima, Nikko-Shirane, Nipesotsu-Maruyama, Niseko, On-take, Oshima, Oshima-Oshima, Osore-yama, Rausu, Rishiri, Sakura-jima, Shikotsu, Shiretoko-Iwo-zan, Sumiyoshi-ike, Tate-yama, Tokachi, To-shima, Towada, Tsurumi, Unzen, Usu, Yake-dake, Yotei, Zao
New Zealand (n = 11)
Auckland Field, Egmont [Taranaki], Kaikohe-Bay of Islands, Maroa, Mayor Island, Okataina, Reporoa, Ruapehu, Taupo, Tongariro, White Island
Papua New Guinea (n = 21)
Ambitle, Bagana, Balbi, Bam, Bamus, Dakataua, Garbuna Group, Hargy, Kadovar, Karkar, Lamington, Langila, Lolobau, Loloru, Long Island, Manam, Pago, Rabaul, Ritter Island, Ulawun, Victory
Philippines (n = 15)
Banáhao, Bulusan, Camiguin, Canlaon, Leonard Range, Mahagnoa, Makaturing, Mariveles, Matutum, Mayon, Parker, Pinatubo, Ragang, San Pablo Volc Field, Taal
Taiwan (n = 1)
South Korea (n = 1)
In what follows, we specify how volcanoes were chosen for analysis and provide an overview of the methodology before describing key components in more detail. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of significant methodological outcomes and the limitations of our approach. The focus here is on defining a robust methodology, with the presentation and discussion of results deferred to Jenkins et al. (2012). A description of terms, acronyms and mathematical notation can be found in “Appendix 1”.
Identifying volcanoes for analysis
The methodology presented here employs the Smithsonian Institution’s Global Volcanism Program catalogue of Holocene events (Siebert and Simkin 2002-), which has been supplemented with further unpublished records provided by the Smithsonian Institution (Siebert, personal communication). The resulting database, which we refer to as the ‘global eruption database’, is used to obtain data regarding eruptive behaviour for each of the volcanoes in the Asia-Pacific region and global analogues. To be considered in our analysis, volcanoes must have had at least one recorded eruption in the Holocene. Volcanoes classified as submarine, hydrothermal, fumarolic or of unknown type were excluded, as were those that form small isolated island chains (e.g. the Marianas and Volcano Islands, South of Japan), which due to their remote locations were unlikely to significantly contribute to the regional hazard. Nearly three quarters (n = 136) of the 190 volcanoes identified are located in just two countries: Indonesia and Japan.
Volcanic hazard assessments often must depend upon eruption data that are poorly constrained and highly uncertain, particularly in countries where relevant historical records and geological studies extend back only a few hundred years or less. Probabilistic methods, as proposed in this paper, attempt to deal with this some of this inherent uncertainty. For each of the 190 identified volcanoes, 1,000 ash dispersal scenarios are simulated, where every scenario is the result of a plausible eruption with an associated probability of occurrence. Due to their potential for generating thicker and more widely dispersed ash falls, and therefore greater disruption for impacted communities, we restrict our modelling to eruptions with a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) ≥4. This can be assumed to correspond to a minimum bulk volume of 0.1 km3 (Newhall and Self 1982). Nevertheless, the methodology, which is described next, requires us to first estimate the likelihood of an eruptions of any VEI from each of the volcanoes in question.
Once the VEI of each simulated eruption and its associated probability has been determined, other key variables, such as eruption volume, wind conditions and ash settling velocities are then randomly sampled from predefined probability distributions and used as input parameters for ash dispersal simulation (see ‘Ash dispersal modelling’ section). The probability distributions dictate the magnitude and allowable range for each variable, and their relative likelihoods within this range.
For each eruption scenario, we calculate ash thickness at 1 km grid intervals for urban areas lying within 1,000 km of the volcanic vent. Ash accumulation more than 1,000 km from source is very rare (Blong 1984) and is therefore not likely to contribute greatly to the hazard at such distances. In the absence of any internationally agreed definition, we consider an urban area to have at least 400 residents/km2 (LandScan 2005 global database: Oak Ridge National Laboratory 2005). In this way, we focus our computing resources on determining the hazard for concentrations of population; for this study region, this comprises an area of over one million square kilometres.
Annual eruption probability
In previous probabilistic assessments of ash hazard, dispersal from a single volcano is often explored conditional upon an eruption having taken place (e.g. Bonadonna et al. 2005; Connor et al. 2001; Jenkins et al. 2008). The consequences are then estimated independently of the probability that the eruption will occur. For our study, such an approach would be invalid as the ash fall hazard at any given location may be an accumulation of the hazard from many volcanoes, all of which are likely to have different eruption probabilities, styles and magnitudes. For our purposes, it was therefore necessary to estimate the individual annual eruption probability for each volcano.
While this approach averages temporal clustering and variations in activity over time that may be better known for individual well-studied volcanoes, it does provide a consistent methodology for the quantification of ash fall hazard across a region, where more detailed knowledge is often lacking. This study is intended as a long-term estimate of ash fall hazard and not an estimate of the next likely eruption. Values of λ have been assigned to each of the 190 study volcanoes, based on the eruption history of that volcano. This demands an estimate of the T for which the eruption catalogue is thought to be complete.
Over the past 200 years, a sharp increase in the number of eruptions recorded globally has been observed, a feature that closely correlates with an exponential increase in global population and more effective recording (Simkin and Siebert 1994). Clearly, correctly estimating the breakpoints from which the time series of eruptions is complete is critical: a record that is too long may lead to an underestimation of eruption frequency and therefore hazard, while too short a record would needlessly eliminate valuable data.
Ideally, data completeness analyses would be carried out on a volcano-by-volcano basis. For well-studied volcanoes with relatively complete or recently detailed eruption records, rates of activity and temporal variations, e.g. open and closed systems, can reliably be constructed (e.g. Ho 1990—Mauna Loa and Etna volcanoes; Klein 1984—Kilauea volcano); however, in the Asia-Pacific region, this level of data completeness is rare and many volcanoes simply do not have a sufficient number of recorded eruptions to allow meaningful judgements. The first eruption of Suoh caldera (Indonesia) recorded in the global eruption database was a VEI 4 eruption in 1933; similarly, Tambora (Indonesia) had no recorded eruptions prior to the VEI 7 eruption of 1812–1815. In the study region, 6 % (n = 30) of volcanoes have only one eruption recorded.
There are a number of possible strategies for estimating eruption data completeness and annual eruption frequency (e.g. Bacon 1982; Coles and Sparks 2006; Marzocchi and Zaccarelli 2006); however, for the reasons stated above and given the geographically and volcanically diverse dataset required for this assessment, a rigorous completeness analysis for all volcanoes in the Region is clearly impossible. We thus analysed completeness globally over areas defined by historical and geographical boundaries, using a ‘break-in-slope’ method.
Data completeness by area for the global eruption record
‘Breakpoints’ (years before 2006)
Number of eruptions during ‘complete’ record
Proportion (%) of total eruptions deemed complete
Proportion (%) of total record length deemed complete
Average Recurrence Interval between eruptions (years)
New Zealand, SW Pacific
Papua New Guinea
1 year 4 months
1 year 8 months
Alaska, Kamchatka, Kuriles
Azores, Madeira, Canaries
13 years 5 months
Canada, Lower 50 states USA
1 year 6 months
1 year 4 months
6 yrs 6 mths
Costa Rica, El Salvador
1 year 9 months
2 years 5 months
4 years 9 months
6 years 10 months
7 years 6 months
1 year 2 months
14 years 2 months
9 years 7 months
Few data points
Assigning eruption frequencies
Having assigned T for each country or sub-region, and each magnitude range (VEI ≤ 3 and VEI ≥ 4), we now estimate each volcano’s λ for an eruption of any magnitude (Eq. 1). Eruption probability was calculated for two magnitude subsets: small magnitude (VEI ≤ 3) and large magnitude (VEI ≥ 4). For example, volcano A has a record of four small magnitude (VEI ≤ 3) eruptions in 100 years and three large magnitude (VEI ≥ 4) eruptions in 2,000 years. The T for each subset is derived from the period over which the catalogue is thought to be complete, in this example 100 and 2,000 years. To aggregate subsets, the different record lengths were normalised to one time period, assuming a constant eruption rate. In this example, we estimate a total of 83 eruptions in a 2,000-year period ((4 × 20) + 3), giving an annual eruption probability of 0.041 and an average recurrence interval—the approximate inverse of the annual eruption probability—of 24 years for an eruption of any VEI magnitude.
In the unique case of Sumiyoshi-ike in Japan, only two small magnitude eruptions have been recorded, both approximately 8,000 years ago. These eruptions fall outside the 500-year complete portion of the small magnitude eruption database for Japan and yet we still require an Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) for this volcano. This was the only volcano in this situation in the region and we chose to consider the record from the earliest eruption, leading to an ARI of approximately 4,000 years.
Average recurrence intervals (ARI) calculated for an eruption of any magnitude from individual volcano histories
Number of eruptions in complete record
Volcano unique ARI (in years)
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Some of this spread in ARI can be attributed to inconsistent quality of data recordings and preservation of deposits between volcanoes and between countries; however, much of the variation will reflect real differences in the tectonic, magmatic and environmental conditions between volcanoes.
Eruption magnitude probability
Previous discussion has centred on the calculation of annual probabilities for each of the region’s volcanoes producing an eruption of any magnitude. Given an eruption at each volcano, we now consider the conditional probability of that eruption being VEI ≤ 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. For many volcanoes, e.g. the Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand (one eruption) and Hakone, Japan (three eruptions), there are very few eruptions in the database, and even less in the portion considered complete. This may be indicative of a low eruption rate, poor historical record or a geological record that is less studied, less accessible and/or less well preserved. Of the region’s 190 volcanoes, 77 % (n = 146) have less than three eruptions during the time period for which their record is deemed complete and/or no record of both large and small magnitude eruptions. With this in mind, we propose to use records from analogous volcanoes (those of the same type category) to provide some perspective on likely eruption behaviour.
Volcano category classification
Volcano counts when grouped into five type categories, based on Siebert and Simkin (2002-)
Volcano type category
Includes Smithsonian Institution definitions of:
Caldera (n = 19)
Caldera, Calderas, pyroclastic shield
Large cone (n = 150)
Complex volcano, Complex volcanoes, Compound volcano, Somma volcano, Somma volcanoes, Stratovolcano, Stratovolcanoes, Volcanic complex
Shield (n = 6)
Shield volcano, Shield volcanoes
Lava dome (n = 6)
Lava dome, Lava domes
Small cone (n = 9)
Cinder cone, Cinder cones, Cones, Crater rows, Explosion craters, Fissure vent, Fissure vents, Lava cone, Maar, Maars, Pyroclastic cone, Pyroclastic cones, Scoria cones, Tuff cones, Tuff rings, Volcanic field
Of all the volcanoes considered, 79 % (n = 151) were categorised as large cones, 9 % (n = 18) as caldera and the remaining 21 as lava dome, shield or small cone. We accept that this categorisation is problematic and that assigning a single, most dominant category does not reflect the full range of complex behaviour possible at many volcanoes. Nonetheless, the approach does allow for an indication of the relative likelihood of eruption magnitudes, with some of the uncertainty in outcomes accounted for by allowing a wide range of possible eruption magnitudes.
Assigning eruption magnitude probabilities
Probabilities for each volcano category assumed for an eruption of VEI 3 or below, 4, 5, 6 or 7, conditional upon an eruption occurring
Volcano type category
Probabilities, conditional upon an eruption of any magnitude
VEI ≤ 3
4.8 × 10−3
4.8 × 10−3
4.5 × 10−4
6.2 × 10−3
2.0 × 10−3
1.0 × 10−3
8.0 × 10−3
Shield (excluding pyroclastic shield) and small cone volcanoes show the lowest conditional probability of producing an eruption of VEI 4 or larger, at 0.04 (4 % of eruptions) and 0.06 (6 %) respectively, with the vast majority being VEI 3 or lower. For large-magnitude (VEI ≤ 4) eruptions, caldera volcanoes have the highest conditional probability of producing very large-magnitude eruptions (VEI 6 or 7) at 0.03 (3 % of eruptions). Eruption frequency is accounted for by calculating the averaged λ for each volcano so that these relative VEI probabilities (Table 5) describe how likely each volcano type is to produce an eruption of each VEI, conditional upon an eruption having occurred.
Where S is the number of simulations that produce thicknesses exceeding the defined thresholds in grid cell x (≤732 for a VEI 4 eruption), EVEI ≥ 4 is the probability of an eruption of VEI 4, 5, 6 or 7 and TotalS is the total number of eruptions simulated, in this case 1,000. Therefore, if we assume that all VEI 4 simulated eruptions from Merapi impact location x, the ARI for that grid cell will be approximately 57 years (1/1.78 × 10−2); however, if only half of simulated VEI 4 eruptions impact the grid cell, the ARI for that cell will rise to approximately 114 years. Clearly, wind conditions are not constant and so the annual probability will vary between grid cells, with those downwind showing higher probabilities than those impacted by more unusual wind conditions.
Ash dispersal modelling
The extent and thickness of ash fall is strongly influenced by the vertical profile of wind speed and direction, eruption magnitude and the physical characteristics of ash particles. Having assigned an annual probability and VEI to each simulated eruption scenario from each volcano, we use the ash advection–diffusion model ASHFALL (Hurst 1994) to simulate the distribution and thickness of ash deposition. ASHFALL is a two-dimensional semi-analytical model that has fast runtimes (1–2 min per simulation on a single processor) making it well suited to probabilistic assessments. The spatial distribution and thickness of ash is obtained by calculating how ash falling out of the column is affected by wind. The following sections detail the probability distributions and relationships determined for the remaining input parameters.
Eruption volumes follow directly from the VEI classification scheme. For a given VEI eruption, the model randomly samples volumes to be equally probable between the lower and upper limits on a logarithmic scale, i.e. a power law distribution. For example, a VEI 4 eruption would sample log10 volume randomly from a Uniform distribution ranging between −1 (log100.1) and 0 (log101) so that smaller volumes within the range are preferentially simulated.
Eruption column height
This relation is similar to that found by Carey and Sigurdsson (1989) for Plinian eruptions and is derived from a regression analysis (r2 = 0.57) of large magnitude global Holocene events with a VEI of 4 or greater (Jenkins et al. 2007).
Ash settling velocities
We use 50 classes of terminal settling velocity, each represented by its relative probability of occurrence within the ejected mass. ASHFALL analyses each settling velocity class individually and then sums thicknesses calculated at each grid point to give total thickness for the eruption.
Ten years of wind data (January 1997 to December 2006) were obtained from the National Centres for Environmental Protection (NCEP) and Atmospheric Research (NCAR) global reanalysis project at 2.5° intervals (200–275 km). Data, available for 17 pressure levels, were interpolated to 35 even height intervals between 1 and 34 km above sea level. For each volcano, the resultant record comprises 14,608 profiles—10 years of 6-h profiles (12 am, 6 am, 12 pm and 6 pm)—of wind speed and direction. So as not to bias simulations towards particular seasonal or diurnal wind conditions, for each volcano and for each of the 1,000 eruption scenarios simulated, wind conditions were sampled randomly from this record at the location closest to the volcano, i.e. within 1.25°. Therefore, closely spaced volcanoes may utilise the same wind records.
Estimating annual exceedance probabilities for ash fall thicknesses
The ARI at a given location is the estimated average time (in years) between ash falls exceeding a given thickness: smaller thickness thresholds will result in shorter ARIs. When considering the ARI for falls exceeding 10 mm in Manila (Fig. 8), values decrease from 18,000 years for falls from Pinatubo to 1,500 years when falls from Taal are also considered. This average is calculated over a long time period or, in this study, over a large number of simulations where each simulation is treated as an independent eruption.
As indicated earlier, our data completeness assessments suggest that more effective reporting of eruptions is limited to the past 200 years of volcanism, although this varies considerably between areas. Our estimates of data completeness, and therefore calculation of eruption probabilities, are subject to uncertainty, particularly in areas where breakpoints between complete and incomplete subsets of data are difficult to identify. It is possible that longer eruption records are dominated by intensive studies at particular volcanoes, which is not accounted for in assuming consistent recording across a geographical area.
Volcanoes with no recorded eruptions in the Holocene (approximately the last 10,000 years) are not included in our assessment. As quiescent intervals between major eruptions at some volcanoes can be thousands of years (Simkin 1993), and with many historical records shorter than this, our assessment may ignore some volcanoes which have the potential to impact the region in the future. However, the probability-weighted contribution to the hazard from volcanoes with ARIs of the order 10,000 years will likely be minimal.
In assigning probabilities to eruption magnitudes, we have used a crude form of volcanic profiling. The physical appearance of a volcano is the product of its past eruptive history and so volcanoes of a similar type category share many structural and eruptive characteristics; however, certain volcanoes may fall within different categories at various stages of their evolution. For example, the Okataina Volcanic Centre in New Zealand is classified here as a lava dome, while according to Nairn (2005) the centre is best described by a complex of lava domes within a caldera. Our categorisation may therefore underestimate the possible peril from this centre. Conversely, Krakatau, Indonesia, is classified as a caldera, whereas we may expect near future eruptions to be more typical of smaller magnitude cone formation eruptions (Simkin and Fiske 1983). While the type classification assigned by the Smithsonian Institution may not always reflect the predominant style of an eruption, at this particular juncture we have adopted their classification scheme. A more detailed volcano-by-volcano assessment is beyond the scope of this study.
Each volcano is assigned a constant annual probability of eruption, regardless of the time elapsed since the last eruption. Accordingly, we have not accounted for time-varying probability such as the possibility of eruptions being temporally clustered (e.g. Auckland Volcanic Field: Bebbington and Cronin 2011) or changes in the magmatic system and thus eruption style.
Ideally, ASHFALL should be calibrated against past eruptions for each of our volcanoes of interest. Due to a lack of preserved deposits, such a study would not be possible for many of the volcanoes and certainly lies well outside the scope of the present investigation. Nonetheless, we believe the use of this model is justified here in a broad assessment of ash fall hazard across the region, allowing us to identify areas at highest risk and those which may benefit from further, more detailed, study.
A methodology has been developed to assess the relative ash fall hazard across the Asia-Pacific region. Eruption probabilities are based on a global eruption database constructed from the Smithsonian Institution Global Volcanism Program catalogue augmented by the Institution’s unpublished data. The annual eruption probability for each of the 190 volcanoes considered draws information from the eruption history of the specific volcano and, where data are lacking, from global analogues, classified here as volcanoes of the same type category. The database is characterised by widely varying degrees of completeness, both temporally and spatially, with some areas (e.g. Japan) exhibiting long and comprehensive records of 3,000 years or more, while others (e.g. Indonesia) only show complete records for the last 500 years or less. By identifying periods of completeness within the database for each area and for different classes of eruption magnitude, and by then only calculating eruption statistics over these periods, we reduce the influence of poor data records upon key input variables, especially eruption frequencies. While our approach simplifies certain attributes that may be known for a few well-studied volcanoes, it nonetheless imposes a consistent methodology on the quantification of ash fall hazard across the region. The methodology provides a regional view of the ash fall hazard in a way that has not been attempted previously. More detailed study of individual volcanic centres should be taken prior to use of the results as the basis for planning or insurance underwriting decisions. In part II, we explore the modelled ash fall hazard results for eruptions with VEI ≥4 and the associated exposure of populations to this hazard in the Asia-Pacific region.
The authors would like to thank Lee Siebert (Smithsonian Institution) for providing unpublished data and for helpful discussions regarding volcano type categorisation and Tony Hurst (GNS Science) for the ASHFALL source code. We also sincerely thank Costanza Bonadonna and Warner Marzocchi for providing detailed and very valuable reviews of the manuscripts and the editors of Bulletin of Volcanology for their support. This research was carried out while Susanna Jenkins was holding an International Macquarie University Research Scholarship.
- Arnold M, Dilley M, Deichmann U, Chen RS, Lerner-Lam AL (2005) Natural disaster hotspots: a global risk analysis. In: Disaster risk management 5. World Bank: Washington, DC. pp 1–145Google Scholar
- Blong RJ (1984) Volcanic hazards: a sourcebook on the effects of eruptions. Academic, Australia, pp 1–424Google Scholar
- Bonadonna C, Connor CB, Houghton BF, Connor L, Byrne M, Laing A, Hincks TK (2005) Probabilistic modeling of tephra dispersal: hazard assessment of a multiphase rhyolitic eruption at Tarawera, New Zealand. J Geophys Res 110(B03203):1–21Google Scholar
- Coles SG, Sparks RSJ (eds) (2006) Extreme value methods for modelling historical series of large volcanic magnitudes. Special Publications of IAVCEI, Geological Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Hoblitt RP, Miller CD, Scott WE (1987) Volcano hazards with regard to siting nuclear power-plants in the Pacific Northwest. United States Geological Survey open-file report 87–297Google Scholar
- Hurst AW (1994) ASHFALL, a computer program for estimating volcanic ash fallout: report and users guide. Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Science Report 94Google Scholar
- Jenkins S, Magill C, McAneney J, Hurst AW (2008) Multi-stage volcanic events: tephra hazard simulations for the Okataina Volcanic Center, New Zealand. J Geophys Res (Earth Surface) 113(F04012)Google Scholar
- Jenkins S, McAneney J, Magill C, Blong R (2012) Regional ash fall hazard II: Asia-Pacific modelling results and implications. Bull Volcanol. doi:10.1007/s00445-012-0628-7
- Macedonio G, Costa A, Folch A (2008) Ash fallout scenarios at Vesuvius: numerical simulations and implications for hazard assessment. J Geophys Res 178(3):366–377Google Scholar
- Machida H, Arai F (1992) Atlas of tephra in and around Japan. University of Tokyo Press (in Japanese), Tokyo, pp 1–276Google Scholar
- Nairn IA (2005) Volcanic hazards at Okataina Volcanic Centre. GNS ScienceGoogle Scholar
- Newhall CG, Bronto S, Alloway B, Banks NG, Bahar I, del Marmol MA, Hadisantono RD, Holcomb RT, McGeehin J, Miksic JN, Rubin M, Sayudi SD, Sukhyar R, Andreastuti S, Tilling RI, Torley R, Trimble D, Wirakusumah AD (2000) 10,000 years of explosive eruptions of Merapi Volcano, Central Java: archaeological and modern implications. J Volcanol Geotherm Res 100(1–4):9–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2005) LandScanTM Global Population DatabaseGoogle Scholar
- Siebert L, Simkin T (2002-) Volcanoes of the world: an illustrated catalog of Holocene volcanoes and their eruptions. Smithsonian Institution, Global Volcanism Program digital information series, GVP-3. (http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/)
- Simkin T, Fiske R (1983) Krakatau 1883: the volcanic eruption and its effects. Smithsonian Institution Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Simkin T, Siebert L (1994) Volcanoes of the world. Geoscience Press, Tucson, pp 1–349Google Scholar
- Spence R, Gunesekara R, Zuccaro G (2009) Insurance risks from volcanic eruptions in Europe. WRN Research Bulletin, Willis Research NetworkGoogle Scholar
- Yokoyama I, Tilling R, Scarpa R (1984) International mobile early-warning system(s) for volcanic eruptions and related seismic activities. FP/2106-82-01 (2286), UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar